Talk:Siemens Charger

Name

There's a short article in the July issue of Trains which refers to this locomotive as the "SC-44". I haven't seen this usage anywhere else yet. If that's in fact the designation, then this article should move to Siemens SC-44 (see e.g. Siemens ACS-64). Mackensen (talk) 17:08, 29 May 2016 (UTC)

• This isn't exactly a source, but the designation is visible on this YouTube video of the first two locomotives leaving the Sacramento plant: [1]. Mackensen (talk) 12:41, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• The "Charger" name is known much earlier than the "SC-44" designation, as oppose to EMD F125 Spirit, where the "F125" designation is known much earlier than the "Spirit" name. As such, "SC-44" should only be mentioned in the introduction, rather than replace the "Charger" name elsewhere in the article. --Will74205 (talk) 13:32, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • That was true for a while with the Cities Sprinter but ACS-64 is more or less universal now. This edit is a problem though; the purpose of the cite is for the designation since it isn't widely known (in fact, I'm pretty sure Trains was the first to report it). The citation makes no sense now that it says Charger, so it should probably be moved elsewhere. Mackensen (talk) 18:30, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree. Moved the citation to the first mention of "SC-44" in the introduction. --Will74205 (talk) 20:45, 20 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Cascades charger.jpg

This image appears to be a copyright violation from the Railway Gazette; we can't use it. Mackensen (talk) 13:45, 10 March 2017 (UTC)

File:Amtrak cascades siemens charger.png

Let's talk about this image. First, I'm sorry to say that I don't think it's very good. The angle is strange, the lighting is poor. The WSDOT markings are barely visible. If it was all we had then that would be one thing, but the image it replaced, File:IDTX SC-44 4601 (27231590613).jpg, is vastly superior, although it we already have a similar image in the infobox. Second, it's a PNG instead of a JPG, with the EXIF data stripped out. This makes me wonder about its provenance, especially given the repeated attempts to add unfree images to this article over the last few days. I think we're better off with the second IDOT image for now, until someone (maybe even WSDOT) contributes a clear shot from the Pacific Northwest. Others? Mackensen (talk) 17:39, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

I agree. It's not a terribly good photograph (somewhat out of focus and odd reflections) and doesn't show the subject very clearly, with the darkness making the front of the locomotive completely obscured. The previous image also has the advantage of being at a slightly higher angle than the other two; with this one there are three ground level quartering views of the locomotive, which is not especially illuminating. About the best I can say for it is that a reverse image search doesn't turn up a previous version elsewhere. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 18:57, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

sorry about the bad angle blame my camera and how i use it im a beginner railfan Slenderman7676 (talk) 7:27 PM, march 12 (GMT)

Agreed with Mackensen and Road. I'm thankful that you've started to take your own images rather than taking those by others, and this is a useful piece of historical documentation (which I'll be moving to Commons for safekeeping), but it's not the most illuminating image to illustrate the article. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:08, 12 March 2017 (UTC)

There is a relevant discussion at Commons:Deletion requests/File:WSDOT 1400 being transported on the Southwest Chief, March 2017.png regarding this image. @Slenderman7676: your comments? Mackensen (talk) 17:32, 23 March 2017 (UTC)

Design

The text "with onboard energy storage" in: In response to a 2013 RFI from Metro-North Railroad, Siemens indicated the possibility of producing a dual-mode variant of the Charger with onboard energy storage for use by Metro-North and Long Island Rail Road. is useless, every dual-mode loc with 3rd has onboard energy storage, that can they use to travel with max 5 mph between the gaps in 3rd rail system... SRich (talk) 18:02, 18 September 2017 (UTC)

MARC Charger image

Hello fellow Wikipedians! I was wondering if anyone had or could locate an image of one of the new MARC Chargers. I will also post this message on Talk:MARC Train. I would do it, but while I have experience editing articles, I don't know anything about adding images, especially when it comes to copyright, etc. Thanks! Daybeers (talk) 22:04, 23 January 2018 (UTC)

Done! OTNRider (talk) 12:27, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Thanks so much! Daybeers (talk) 16:24, 28 January 2018 (UTC)

Terminology

The latest Passenger Train Journal indicates that the Brightline units are designated SCB-40, not SC-44. Railway Age made a similar report in June: [2]. It's not clear to me what differences, if any, exist between the two. The old datasheets had the same figures. Mackensen (talk) 22:28, 12 February 2018 (UTC)

Interesting find! This article from Railway Age states the Brightline Chargers have 4,000 horsepower engines. this USA Today article says the same. I know the Brightline models have streamlined front ends which conceal the front couplers behind doors. I would imagine SC-44 stands for Siemens Charger-4,400 horsepower, while SCB-40 stands for Siemens Charger Brightline-4,000 horsepower. I don't think we need to create a new article for the two different models, just have two different sections describing the two, like in the GE Genesis article. –Daybeers (talk) 00:23, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I think you're right about the designations and yes, definitely not enough material for a split. It does call into question the reliability of the Siemens fact sheets. Mackensen (talk) 03:40, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

I've tweaked the article text and infobox and reshuffled a few images on Commons. I think we're good. Mackensen (talk) 13:48, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

20 additional units

Various editors are claiming 20 additional units for the Pacific Surfliner, to be delivered 2018-2020, on top of the existing 22 units (6 original + 14 ordered in 2015 + 2 ordered in 2016). I do not believe this is correct. Per this Caltrans press release, the latter 14+2 units are to be produced beginning in 2018. Per this article, they are specifically for the Surfliner. Those 14+2 will be the ones displacing the F59s to Metra - not an additional order. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:48, 18 September 2018 (UTC)

Well the Pacing Surfliner article says 20 are ordered for Surfliner service. Until that Surfliner article says otherwise, we should mention that in the Charger article. 2603:3007:2100:9600:E034:6C02:9EFE:2A20 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 18:02, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

No, the 20 mentioned in the Pacific Surfliner article (note that the source is from 2015) are just the original 2014/2015 Charger order, of which the latter 14 plus the 2 ordered in 2016 are just now getting delivered. I will update the Pacific Surfliner article to reflect that. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 21:13, 19 September 2018 (UTC)

Chargers on Surfliner

2111 entered testing on Pacific Surfliner #763 in a F59-Cab-Coach-Coach-Cafe-Superliner-Pacific Business Class-Charger layout. I saw it this morning. 2600:8802:4601:9400:5889:BA57:ECD9:CAC1 (talk) 01:13, 29 November 2018 (UTC)

Individual units

@Will74205: The 2017 derailment has absolutely no connection to the locomotive being a Charger. It being the first Charger to be wrecked is not a significant event in service history like first service or retirement is. (In particular, there is no reason this article should cover details of the accident like the cause.) There is no reason to have updates on individual locomotives in an article that covers hundreds of them. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 23:58, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

I disagree, by your reasoning, jetliner model articles should not contain a section of notable incidents, but each has one. A brief description liked that one that's in question is sufficient. --Will74205 (talk) 00:21, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

They shouldn't - it's borderline trivia based on a very thin common thread. But at least in many of those cases, the model of jetliner has some actual relevance to the accident. If there was any indication that a flaw in the Charger caused the accident, it would be worthwhile to mention here, but that's not the case. The relevant details of the accident are the Port Defiance Bypass that it took place on, and the Amtrak Cascades service it was on - and it's mentioned in both those articles. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 00:43, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

I agree with Pi...'s logic. I would also add that locomotives wrecking is far more common than airliners crashing, enough so that the individual unit is likely to receive only a trivial mention in sources, if it is even noted at all. If for some reason the specific locomotive is widely reported on, then we can have a discussion at the time, but as a general rule I think that listing individual units is not a good idea. The Wicked Twisted Road (talk) 16:53, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

There was a similar discussion at Talk:EMD_F40PH#Accidents and incidents, where I took largely the same line as Pi. Note that in the article on the EMD SDP40F, where the locomotive's design was a contributing factor in a dozen derailments, this is discussed as prose and not broken out into a list of incidents. Admittedly I don't believe any of those derailments resulted in the death of a passenger. Mackensen (talk) 17:05, 5 January 2019 (UTC)

Why did it replace Siemens Chargers replace the F59PHIs for Amtrak's Cascade and Pacific Surfliner?

What are the reasons why the Siemens Chargers replaced the F59PHIs for Amtrak's Cascade and Pacific Surfliner? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 05:33, 8 December 2020 (UTC)

Simple. Cleaner, faster, and more fuel-efficient. It’s also built to modern emission tier regulations. The F59s are already 20 years old. Thankfully Metra has chosen to buy the units. Davidng913 (talk) 21:32, 7 September 2021 (UTC)

The F59s aren't that old, are they? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Clrichey (talk • contribs) 04:22, 21 December 2021 (UTC)

MARC operating speed

“The top speed in service is 125 mph (201 km/h), but MARC is the only operator currently operating the Charger at that speed.”

A commuter railway operating trains at 125 mph? That’s an insanely fast speed for a frequent-stop service in urban/suburban areas…and most trains in the US operate at less than 100 mph.

Is there a reliable source for the MARC speed? The provided source doesn’t actually back up the 125 mph claim. User2346 (talk) 10:33, 30 June 2021 (UTC)

I'm unsure of any citations, but MARC likely runs express services, and the Penn Line is on the Northeast Corridor, with a large portion having track speeds in excess of 125mph. MetalJulia (talk) 06:50, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

After further research, it seems unlikely the MARC Chargers could actually operate at 125 given the top speeds of their passenger cars -- I can't find data for the single-levels and MARC III, but the MARC IV (MultiLevel) has a top speed of 100-110 mph. MetalJulia (talk) 06:53, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

I’m going to cut that part of the article. In the (very likely) event of a reliable source cropping up that backs the 125mph claim it can be reverted. User2346 (talk) 16:30, 3 August 2021 (UTC)

A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:

• Coaster5002.jpg

Participate in the deletion discussion at the nomination page. —Community Tech bot (talk) 15:53, 23 September 2021 (UTC)

ConnDOT purchase

Although it seems likely the new locos will be based on the Charger, none of the citations specify the model of the new locomotives. Doesn't seem like it belongs on the Charger page? MetalJulia (talk) 06:48, 13 January 2022 (UTC)

This information has been added again to the article. I can't find any sources saying CTDOT is going to purchase Chargers specifically. I am a CT resident and quite familiar with ct.gov, and despite the claims of the latest reinsertion of this material, I cannot find anything on the website supporting the claim they've agreed to purchase Chargers. A search [3] shows nothing supporting this claim. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 22:03, 25 January 2022 (UTC)

Developed from/developed into info Charger

“ |developed from = Vectron (locomotive)

|variants with their own articles = Siemens ACS-64 ”

The ACS-64 has been in-service before the Charger (hints the order) if you know where to include the information previously mentioned above please do and if possible, let me know. I don’t know where is the right place.

(PS: I planned on including the previously mentioned above in its respective article; Again, I don’t know where is the right place.)

--Sroth0616 (talk) 21:49, 11 February 2022 (UTC)

Replacing ACS-64s

This article currently states:

The Auxiliary Power Vehicle will contain a pantograph, transformers and a powered truck. In electrified territory, the APV will draw power from overhead lines, which will be fed to the powered truck and the traction motors in the locomotive. Outside of electrified territory, the ALC-42E will function like a typical diesel–electric locomotive. This combination will reduce the use of Amtrak's existing Siemens ACS-64 electric locomotives to just long-distance trains that continue off the Northeast Corridor.

This text is not supported by its citation.

Amtrak currently runs three types of services on the Northeast Corridor:

1. first class intercity expresses (the Acela and soon Avelia Liberty),
2. coach class high-speed trains (the Northeast Regional) between Boston and Washington, DC, and
3. state-supported trains (the Pennsylvanian, Downeaster, Vermonter, any many others) which run on the corridor near NY, but continue off the corridor onto nonelectrified tracks.

Trains in the second category currently are powered by ACS-64s through New York and change engines at New Haven, Philadelphia, or DC. Confusingly, some trains named Northeast Regional fall into the third category, not the second, because they continue to Springfield, MA or various places in Virginia — but neither do all Northeast Regionals fall into the third category.

The current text in the article suggests the ALC-42s will replace the use of ACS-64s for trains of the second category, but not the third.

However, the cited report discusses replacing the ACS as follows (pages 126-7):

Twenty-six (26) catenary-diesel dual-power trainsets, consisting of an ALC-42E locomotive and six passenger cars, for use on the Downeaster, Vermonter, Pennsylvanian, Palmetto, Carolinian and Keystone Service. The passenger car closest to the locomotive will be an Auxiliary Power Vehicle (APV)…Twenty-four (24) catenary-diesel dual-power trainsets (with a short term option to acquire eight more), consisting of an ALC-42E locomotive and eight passenger cars, for use on Northeast Regional including through trains to Virginia and Springfield, Massachusetts. These trainsets will also include an APV for use on the NEC.

That quote implies that Amtrak does plan to use new ALC-42s at least to replace the ACS-64s currently used for trains of the third category, but leaves ambiguous whether the trains of the second category will be replaced as well. However, the source continues (page 132):

ACS-64 Electric Locomotives Amtrak’s purchase of ICTs will reduce the number of ACS-64 electric locomotives required for daily revenue service…The exact quantities of units displaced and the timing have not yet been determined.

Note the use of the word "reduce" (not "eliminate")! The most parsimonious explanation I see for this report is that Amtrak continues to plan to use the ACS-64s on trains of the second category. Note that this interpretation of the source is the opposite of the current claim in the article.

@RickyCourtney:, you and I appear to have begun an WP:EDITWAR over whether this is an accurate interpretation of the report. If you disagree with my intepretation, please explain here why, or find a reliable source supporting the article text as currently constituted. Thanks, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 07:33, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@Bernanke's Crossbow Sorry, I'm not following. The sources say "for use on Northeast Regional *including* through trains to Virginia and Springfield". How does that not include the second category of trains? My understanding of the source is that the ACS-64s will remain in use primarily to haul long-distance trains when they are on the NEC (Cardinal, Crescent, Palmetto, Silver Star and Silver Meteor).

Two proposed ways to rephrase that sentence:

"This combination will replace the use of Amtrak's existing Siemens ACS-64 electric locomotives on most trains that continue off the Northeast Corridor"

"This combination will replace the use of Amtrak's existing Siemens ACS-64 electric locomotives on corridor/intercity (choose one) trains that continue off the Northeast Corridor"

We can also add a line like, "Some ACS-64 locomotives will remain for use with Amtrak's long-distance trains that use the Northeast Corridor." RickyCourtney (talk) 16:25, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

@RickyCourtney: Yes, that "including" does cut against my reading a little; rereading the source yet again, the Cardinal, Crescent, and Silver Service don't seem to be listed anywhere (Palmetto is listed as using the new trainsets — see p. 126). Perhaps you are correct, and their DC dwells are long enough to support an engine change. OTOH, close-reading a single ambiguous document is poor support for a Wikipedia article, if we can avoid it. For that reason, I like your second alternative, with "corridor"; it unambiguously indicates that NE Regionals through to New England or Virginia will use the new Chargers and simultaneously sidesteps our arguments over the other trains. Thanks for bearing with me, Bernanke's Crossbow (talk) 22:35, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

ALC-42 Issues

So the ALC-42 locomotives that Amtrak purchased are clearly having problems. Back in February 2022, the inaugural run had to be led by a P42 (https://railfan.com/amtraks-alc-42-debut-mired-by-technical-troubles/). Now fast forward to January 2023, they are still having problems in terms of winter weather. Per the Siemens chairperson, the locomotives were losing power in "unusually extreme circumstances where the locomotive experiences drastic changes in temperature" (https://railfan.com/amtraks-new-long-distance-chargers-continue-to-struggle/).

Right now, I notice no parts of this page ever mentions any technical problems. I'm not sure what teh consensus is on that, but seeing that there are still issues literally after a year, I'm not sure if that makes it any notable. I would appreciate any opinions regarding whether or not technical issues are considered trivial or semi-important. For instance, the HSP-46 page mentions their technical problems, but neither the F125 nor the Charger pages mentions this.

-- Davidng913 (talk) 17:53, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia pages are not marketing pages, so including issues would seem appropiate. I would just make sure that the coverage is not given undue weight and that we avoid some of the railfan "the sky is falling" attitude I've seen online. Keep in mind, every new locomotive rollout has issues. The Genesis locomotives had their teething issues, but now 20 years in the rearview mirror, they don't seem like a big deal. Freight locomotives have issues, but there are thousands of them in service (compared to passenger units in the dozens or hundreds) and they don't attact the same level of attention or scrutiny. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:13, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with @RickyCourtney. If the issue receives reporting outside the railfan community, then it's probably worth including. Mackensen (talk) 20:44, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I am also seeing coverage in Trains and Railway Age. This isn't just a minor note, we should mention it in the article. Trainsandotherthings (talk) 23:20, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

Per everyone above, I see no reason why the ALC-42 issues should not be included in this article. XtraJovial (talk • contribs) 15:26, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Variant comparison

Would it make sense to have a table to explicitly compare the different variants to make it clear what the differences are? The article currently just casually mentions it but doesn’t lay out it in much detail.  —lensovet–talk – 17:46, 27 April 2023 (UTC)

Metro-North West of Hudson

I thought Metro-North would be receiving SC-44 units for replacing the West of Hudson Fleet. Or at least they were considering it. The full text from the Port Jervis Line and MNCR rolling stock pages: " In July 2018, Metro-North Rail Commuter Council Vice Chairman Orrin Getz announced the agency's intention to purchase 15 new Siemens Charger SC-44 locomotives to replace the current locomotive fleet for the Port Jervis Line."

Is there a reason why this info is not being included on this page? Davidng913 (talk) 03:16, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

I think you answered your own question. They were considering it in 2018. The sourced text on this page is newer and involves procurement for different operations. If anything, the other articles may need revision. Do newer sources speak to this issue? Mackensen (talk) 03:25, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Then I guess we can get rid of this info on the other pages. Thanks for your reply. Davidng913 (talk) 18:35, 5 July 2023 (UTC)

Exo Charger Naming

Do we know that the Exo chargers are getting a unique name & why? I've not seen anything saying the type of Charger they're getting beyond basic capacity specs. PFreeman008 (talk) 02:42, 15 August 2024 (UTC)

Infobox image discussion

There is disagreement between me and @RickyCourtney over what the infobox image should be:

My position:

1.) This is an article about the Siemens Charger family of locomotives.

2.) The infobox image should be of the SC-44 model, as that is the most common Charger variant and one used by the most operators, and is the most representative.

3.) The image of the article subject (i.e. the locomotive) should be sharp, well-lit, and have the SC-44 be prominent if possible per MOS:IMAGEQUALITY

4.) The Pacific Surfliner infobox image is a nice, but the locomotive is blurry. Given the article is about the locomotive, I believe the locomotive should be sharp. If this was the article about the Pacific Surfliner or the Surf Line (or some other topic), I believe the blur would be fine, but this is the article about the Siemens Charger locomotive family. I don't think a blurry image of the locomotive in question is acceptable, and is not outweighed by the other nice aspects of the image (e.g. the pleasant background)

5.) There are several sharp, high quality images of the Siemens SC-44 on the Commons. Among others:

(the one I edited to and was reverted by @RickyCourtney). The locomotive is the primary subject, is reasonably well lit, and the image is sharp and sunny. I believe this is the best candidate for the infbox image.

Shows the locomotive very well, but not as sunny as the others. IMO it's a little drab of an image for infobox purposes. There's also what appears to be a wire harness and some other test equipment attached to the side of the locomotive.

Also a lot of upsides, but MARC's livery is a bit drab and the locomotive doesn't stand out well from its background

This is sharp, but it's not as well-lit (the locomotive isn't in the sun), and the locomotive gets a bit lost in all the blue.

This is well lit, but shows the side of the locomotive poorly.

Another candidate, though the locomotive is IMO a bit small in the image.

Locomotive a bit small, and doesn't hold up well when cropped

Ditto

A little too dark

Obstructed by sign

Not in service

Nose is backlit

Locomotive too small in the frame

Any thoughts here? 4300streetcar (talk) 16:57, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I agree with 4300 that the first shot in this selection is best. The second, fourth, and second-to-last images would also be fine. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 20:54, 14 October 2024 (UTC)

I generally agree with all of your comments. My only really issue with the first image is that it's just boring. Shots of passenger locomotives stopped at train stations are a dime a dozen.

I'd like to add one more option for consideration:

Yes, it's not the traditional three-quarter's view, but it's a unique photo with a nice offset of colors. RickyCourtney (talk) 02:31, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

It's a cool photo, but unfortunately it's got some rolling shutter that makes vertical parts of the locomotive seem slanted to the right, and I don't think it'll make a great infobox image as a result. I'll take a look around Flickr to see if there's any Creative Commons-licensed images that could potentially go in the Commons. 4300streetcar (talk) 02:58, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

This photographer on Flickr has several images that have been deeded to public domain under CC0:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201449449@N06

(note several photographs retain full copyright)

The EXIF data is reasonably consistent (he alternates between a Canon EOS 20D and a Canon T7), so I believe they are in fact his images.

These seem promising:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201449449@N06/54033255957/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201449449@N06/54006973981/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201449449@N06/54009414670/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/201449449@N06/54017899348/

When I have time I'll upload them to the Commons. 4300streetcar (talk) 03:24, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

Some others from Guo Rei Pei on Flickr that have been deeded under PDM 1.0:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/197409220@N06/54033146282/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/197409220@N06/53710703598/

Some from mliu92 under CC-BY-SA 2.0 (a few have been uploaded to the Commons but several have not, or were not categorized)

https://www.flickr.com/search/?user_id=23807199%40N00&view_all=1&text=Siemens&license=4%2C5%2C6%2C9%2C10

I also found several images from Han Zheng on Flickr that were previously uploaded to the Commons, but were never categorized, such as this one (I categorized this particular one, but there are several more)

4300streetcar (talk) 03:38, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I put three of my favorites from Flickr on Commons

The first is my favorite, and I think holds up best to the inevitable cropping that will need to happen. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 04:01, 15 October 2024 (UTC)

I cropped the first and second one. They're not that sharp up-close, so I applied some sharpening (about 0.2) in GIMP. I prefer the second as the locomotive is leading.

They are nice whole-train shots, but I'm still not a huge fan of them for illustrating the locomotive specifically as the locomotive isn't as prominent in the shot as I'd like. 4300streetcar (talk) 04:47, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Alright, when the first image is cropped to remove all the platform crap, I find it a little better. It's still boring, and I'd like to see it replaced by something better (like the awesome photo on the GE Genesis page) but I can live with it.

-- RickyCourtney (talk) 05:17, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

Boring shots are often the best for locomotive infobox images, because the need is to show the full locomotive in detail. Action shots with nice scenery, or that show the whole train, tend to not be as good for illustrating the locomotive model itself. I just replaced the Genesis infobox image for that reason. Since we seem to have consensus for this cropped image (I recropped it slightly wider to avoid feeling cramped), I will put it in the infobox. Pi.1415926535 (talk) 06:18, 17 October 2024 (UTC)

@Pi.1415926535 I've been lurking in the Aircraft infobox image discussions a lot and I appreciate their efforts to balance aesthetics with illustrating the subject, so I was just trying to apply some of that logic here too. That said, I also know these are decisions we can always revisit as new and better images are captured. To that end, I very much disagree with the swap of the Genesis image. The new image is a significant downgrade aesthetically for a very minor improvement in illustrating the side of the locomotive. -- RickyCourtney (talk) 20:34, 17 October 2024 (UTC)